Sprain and Gastil: An Interpretative Account of Jurors’ Expressed Deliberative Rules and Premises

Professor Dr. Leah Sprain of Colorado State University and Professor Dr. John Gastil of Penn State University have published What Does It Mean to Deliberate? An Interpretative Account of Jurors’ Expressed Deliberative Rules and Premises, Communication Quarterly, 61(2), 151-171 (2013).

Here is the abstract:

To advance deliberative theory and practice, this study considers the experiences of trial jurors who engaged in deliberation. Conceptualized as a speech event, this article inductively explores the deliberative rules and premises articulated by jurors. Jurors believe deliberation should be rigorous and democratic, including speaking opportunities for all, open-minded consideration of different views, and respectful listening. Jurors actively consider information, but face-to-face deliberation is essential for thoroughly processing evidence. Although emotions should not influence the final verdict, participants report that emotions often reinforce deliberative norms. These results inform theory and deliberative experiences in and beyond the jury.

Professor Gastil describes the research in his recent post at Jury and Democracy Blog: New article shows how jurors decribe their service experience.

Peña Gangadharan: Toward a Deliberative Standard: Rethinking Participation in Rulemaking

Dr. Seeta Peña Gangadharan of the New America Foundation has published Toward a Deliberative Standard: Rethinking Participation in Policymaking, Communication, Culture, and Critique, 6, 1-19 (2013).

Here is the abstract:

In contrast to communitarian and pluralist approaches to participation, the following article develops a deliberative model of participation in rulemaking at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This deliberative model is distinguished by its concern for the emergence of publics and for the speaking and listening capacities of policymakers and publics alike. The model focuses both on spaces for collective discussion as well as translation between sites of discussion. Embracing a complex view of civil society, and stressing the principle of inclusion, a deliberative model corresponds to a form of legitimacy that extends beyond the boundaries of conventional administrative procedure.

Gastil on the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review 2012

Professor Dr. John Gastil of Penn State University has posted The Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review, at the Democracy Fund Blog.

The post summarizes the results of the 2012 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review, “which convene[d] a group of average citizens together to evaluate ballot measures and share their recommendations with the voting public.”

Key findings:

• A majority of Oregon voters were aware of the CIR.
• Roughly two-thirds of those who read the CIR Statements found them helpful when deciding how to vote.
• Those who read a CIR Statement learned more about the ballot measures than those who read other portions of the official Voter’s Guide. [...]

The complete evaluation report described in the post is: Katherine R. Knobloch, John Gastil, Robert Richards, and Traci Feller. (2012). Evaluation Report on the 2012 Citizens’ Initiative Reviews for the Oregon CIR Commission. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University.

For more details, please see Professor Gastil’s complete post.

Click here for more information on the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review, at Participedia.

Disclosure: Professor Gastil is my Ph.D. advisor, and I contributed to the evaluation report on the 2012 Oregon CIR and the voter survey discussed in the post, and to the Participedia article on the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review linked above.

HT @jgastil

Knobloch, Gastil, et al.: Applying an Evaluative Model of Democratic Deliberation to the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review

Professor Dr. Katherine R. Knobloch, Professor Dr. John Gastil, Justin Reedy, and Professor Dr. Katherine Cramer-Walsh, have published Did They Deliberate? Applying an Evaluative Model of Democratic Deliberation to the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review, forthcoming in Journal of Applied Communication Research.

Here is the abstract:

As deliberative forums proliferate, scholars and practitioners need to establish a shared evaluative framework grounded in a theoretical definition of deliberation, applicable across contexts, and capable of yielding results comprehensible to public officials and key stakeholders. We present such a framework and illustrate its utility by evaluating the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR), a public event that serves as both a critical case study and an important practical innovation in its own right. Our analysis shows that the CIR met a reasonable standard for democratic deliberation, and we pinpoint CIR features that both aided and detracted from its overall quality. We also show how we summarized these results to communicate our evaluation efficiently to the Oregon State Legislature. We conclude by making recommendations for future applications of our theoretical model and evaluative framework and offer practical suggestions for future deliberative forums.

Nabatchi, Gastil, et al. on Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement

Professor Dr. Tina Nabatchi of the Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Professor Dr. John Gastil of the Penn State University Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, and colleagues, have edited a new book entitled Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement (Oxford University Press, 2012).

Full text of some portions of the book are available on Google Books.

Several of the chapters discuss evaluation of law-related deliberation, particularly regarding ballot initiatives, and at times with reference to empirical research on jury deliberations.

Here is an excerpt from the publisher’s description:

Democracy in Motion represents the first comprehensive attempt to assess the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement. Organized in a series of chapters that address the big questions of deliberative civic engagement, it uses theory, research, and practice from around the world to explore what we know about, how we know it, and what remains to be understood.

Here is the table of contents:

1. Introduction to Deliberative Civic Engagement / Tina Nabatchi
2. Mapping Deliberative Civic Engagement: Pictures From a (R)evolution / Matt Leighninger
3. Who Deliberates? Recruitment and Participation in Deliberative Civic Engagement / David Ryfe and Brittany Stalsburg
4. How People Communicate During Deliberative Events / Laura Black
5. Deliberative Inclusion in Multicultural Societies / Alice Siu and Dragan M. Stanisevski
6. Online Deliberation Design: Choices, Criteria, and Evidence / Todd Davies and Reid Chandler
7. Does Deliberation Make Better Citizens? / Heather Pincock
8. Deliberation’s Contribution to Community Capacity-Building / Bo I. Kinney
9. Assessing the Policy Impacts of Deliberative Civic Engagement / Gregory Barrett, Miriam Wyman, and Vera Schattan P. Coehlo
10. Evaluating Deliberative Public Events and Projects / John Gastil, Katie Knobloch, and Meghan B. Kelly
11. Listening and Responding to Critics of Deliberative Civic Engagement
    / Loren Collingwood and Justin Reedy
12. Advancing the Theory and Practice of Deliberative Civic Engagement: A Secular Hymnal / Michael Weiksner, John Gastil, Tina Nabatchi, and Matt Leighninger

Legal Informatics and Legal Communication Papers at ICLS 2012

Several papers on legal informatics or legal communication were presented at ICLS 2012: International Conference on Law and Society, held 5-8 June 2012 in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

Below are the titles, and links to abstracts, of the legal informatics or legal communication papers — that I’ve been able to identify — that were presented at the conference. If you know of others, please feel free to identify them in the comments.

• Philip Adey (University of Sydney): Expert Psychiatric Evidence in Civil Litigation Involving Allegations of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: The Australian Experience
• Afra Afsharipour (University of California, Davis): Deal Technology
• Seantel A. Anais (Carleton University): Commissioning Credibility: Texts, Testimony, and Truth in Commissions of Inquiry
• Maria Ines Bergoglio (Universidad Nacional de Córdoba): Legitimacy of the Judicial System and Lay Participation in Judicial Decision-Making Processes in Córdoba, Argentina
• Susan Berk-Seligson and Mitchell A. Seligson (Vanderbilt University): The Role of the Police in Crime-Prevention in Central America
• Susan L. Brooks (Drexel University) and David M. Boulding (Private Practice): Using Communication Models to Teach Relational Competencies in Law School
• Christopher Brown (University of Arkansas, Monticello): Death by Any Other Name: Definitionalism’s Impact on America’s Response to Genocide
• Iokepa Casumbal-Salazar (University of Hawaii, Manoa): Monumental Science in Hawaiʻi: U.S. Imperialism, Western Astronomy, and Kanaka Maoli Resistance to Telescopes atop Mauna a Wākea
• Marie Comiskey (University of Michigan): Testing the Comprehensibility of Canadian Jury Instructions and the Efficacy of 3 Comprehension Aids
• Shari S. Diamond, Chair (Northwestern U/American Bar Foundation); Participants: Mei-Tong Chen (Judicial Yuan, Taiwan), Edmundo S. Hendler (University of Buenos Aires), Jae-Hyup Lee (Seoul National University), Richard O. Lempert (University of Michigan), Kwangbai Park (Chungbuk National University), Christoph Rennig (Frankfurt High Court of Appeals): Roundtable–The Role of Professionals in Lay Tribunals
• Soren Frederiksen (York University): Has the Supreme Court’s Philosophy of Science Made It to Canada?
• Masahiro Fujita (Kansai University): Informational Justice in Jury Research: Reframing Prior Jury Researches
• Jeremy Gans (University of Melbourne): Verbal Equivalents to Likelihood Ratios: Limited Probative Value, Strong Prejudicial Effect, Inconclusive Admissibility, Immoderate Usage
• Claire M Germain (University of Florida): Recent Developments in the French Criminal Jury
• Toby S Goldbach (Cornell University): Lay Participation in the Criminal Trial: First Nations Sentencing Circles and Law Reform in Canada
• Jasmine B. Gonzales Rose (University of Pittsburgh): Juror Language Accommodation in Theory and Praxis
• Mel Greenlee (California Appellate Project): Faretta, Marsden, and the Pro-Se Motion: Legal Language on the Skids
• Miranda C. Hallett (Otterbein University) and Michael Jones-Correa (Cornell University): Borders of the Public: Framing the Inclusion and Exclusion of Undocumented Migrants
• Paula Hannaford-Agor (National Center for State Courts), Nicole L. Waters (National Center for State Courts): Juror and Jury Use of New Media: A Baseline Exploration
• Valerie P. Hans (Cornell University): The Jury in Russia: Research and Reform
• Emma M. Henderson (La Trobe University): The Empty Gesture: Jury Directions and the Meaning of Consent in Rape Trials in Victoria, Australia
• Livia Holden (Lahore University of Management Sciences): Non-State Law and Governance in South Asia: Changing Discourse
• Ruth Horowitz (New York University): Experts and Deliberative Democracy
• Syugo Hotta (Meiji University): Linguistic Justice: A Linguistic Analysis of Deliberation
• Takayuki Ii (Hirosaki University): A Gap Before and After Saiban-in Service
• John D Jackson (University College, Dublin) and Nikolai Kovalev (Wilfrid Laurier University): Lay Adjudication in Europe: New Developments
• Natália P Junior (IESP / UERJ): Participatory and Deliberative Democracy from Local to Global: The Example of Women’s Conferences as New Spaces for Mobilization and Proposed Public Policies on Gender in Brazil
• Shiro Kashimura (Kobe University): Telling a Code of Law: Interactive Grounds and Contingencies of Giving Legal Advice in Japan
• Zeynep U. Kasli (University of Washington, Seattle): Who Frames the Rights-Talk and how? Immigrant Associations and Undocumented Immigrants
• Richard Kemp and Kristy Martire (University of New South Wales): A Framework for Testing the Validity of Forensic Science Evidence
• Yumiko Kita (University of Sussex): Intentions and the Reality of the Lay Adjudication in Criminal Trials: Indications from the Introduction of the Japanese Citizen Judge System (Saiban-in Seido) in Terms of a Comparative Criminal Justice Study
• Takanori Kitamura (Tokai University): An Interactional Analysis of Legal Consultations between Lawyers and Clients in Japan
• Danfeng S.V. Koon (University of California, Berkeley): Metaphors and Meaning: The Role of Metaphors in Shaping Organizational Responses to Law
• Janny Leung (University of Hong Kong): The Judge as a Godfather, Scholar, Educator, and Scolding Parent: Judicial Discourse in Cantonese Courtrooms in Hong Kong
• Sean Mallin (University of California, Irvine): Finding Blight: Code Enforcement and “Responsible” Ownership in Post-Katrina New Orleans
• Kristy Martire, Richard Kemp, Ben R. Newell, and Ian Watkins (University of New South Wales): The Correspondence between Expert Intentions and Juror Interpretations: A Likely Story?
• Lisa McElroy (Drexel University): Cameras at the Supreme Court: A Rhetorical Analysis
• Giorgi Meladze (Free University of Tbilisi): Georgian Jury System
• Caren Morrison (Georgia State University): Jurors Under Scrutiny: The Rise of Online Intrusion
• Lisa Mortimer (University of Melbourne): Access to Justice in Timor-Leste: The Role of Local and Non-Local Languages in Timor-Leste’s Formal and Informal Justice Systems
• Margaret van Naerssen (Immaculata University): Miranda Rights: Selected Linguistic Correlates of “Knowingly” and “Intelligently”
• Evelyn Nava-Fischer (Cardiff University): The Role of Regulatory Framings in the Setting and Reception of Global Standards: The Discursive Constitution of International Standards Disputes and of Agri-Food Regulatory Models in India
• Takeshi Nishimura (Shimada & Nishimura Law Office): Transparency of Japanese Criminal Justice System after Saiban-in System Was Implemented
• Karen Petroski (Saint Louis University): Texts, Not Testimony: Rethinking the Legal Use of Non-Legal Expertise
• Anastasia Powell, Nicola Henry, Emma M Henderson, Kirsty Duncanson (La Trobe University) and Asher Flynn (Monash University): The Meanings of “Sex” and “Consent”: History, Discourse, and Impact of Rape Law Reform in Victoria (Australia)
• Richard Powell (Nihon University): Motivations For and Implications Of Changing the Language of the Law: Lessons from Malaysia
• Jeanne M. Powers (Arizona State University): Social Science Research and Judicial Decision Making in School Finance Litigation
• Ming Qi (Jilin University): The People’s Jurors in Chinese Judicial System: Mechanisms and Policies
• John N. Robinson (Northwestern University): Disputing Dispersal: Frames, Repertoires, and Support Structures in Anti-HOPE VI Legal Campaigns
• William Rose (Albion College): Occasional Legislators: Law, Politics, and the Discourse of Judging
• Meredith Rossner (University of Western Sydney): Common Narrative and Community Cohesion: Toward a Micro-Level Theory of Deliberative Dynamics
• Jenny Roth (Lakehead University) and Monica Flegel (Lakehead University): It’s Like Rape: Exploring Social Understandings of Copyright in Debates between Fans and Creative Producers
• Jessica Salerno (U of Illinois, Chicago/American Bar Foundation): Emotion and Jury Deliberation: Does Expressing Emotion Make Stereotyped Holdout Jurors More or Less Persuasive?
• Joseph Sanders (University of Houston): Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group: Constructing and Deconstructing Science in the Courtroom
• Tatsuya Sato (Ritsumeikan University): 3D Visualization System for Lay Judges to Understand Legal Disputes on Trial
• Michael J. Shapiro (University of Hawaii): War Crimes and the Justice Dispositif
• Brian G. Slocum (University of the Pacific): Linguistics and Authorial Intent
• Ciara Staunton (National University of Ireland, Galway): Ethics, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, and Democratic Deliberation
• David Tait (University of Western Sydney): Racial Coding of Railway Stations: Jury Deliberation about the Meaning of Place in a Mock Terrorism Trial
• Anthea Fay Vogl (University of Technology, Sydney): Telling Stories from Start to Finish: Exploring the Demand for Narrative in Refugee Testimony
• Kosuke Wakabayashi (Ritsumeikan University): The Effects of the Judicial Instruction which Includes Argument for Evidence Law Regarding Pre-Trial Publicity Information
• Natalie Wallace and Valerie P. Hans (Cornell University): Is There a Lawyer in the “House”? The Portrayal of Medical Negligence in “House, M.D.”
• Mark E. Walters (University of California, San Diego): Legal-Cultural Formations from High Literacy to Secondary Orality
• Zhuoyu Wang (Southwest University of Finance and Economics of China): An Empirical Research on China’s Recent Reforms of Its Mixed Tribunal System
• Matthew J. Wilson (University of Wyoming): Japan’s Evolving Lay Judge System: Room for Improvement or Even Expansion?
• Toru Yamada (Cornell University): A Conceptual Administrative Manual: Discursive Formations in Japan’s Heritage Nomination Process

Legal Communication Papers at RSA 2012: Rhetoric Society of America Biennial Conference

The legal communication papers (that I’ve been able to identify) being presented at RSA 2012: The 15th Rhetoric Society of America Biennial Conference, being held 25-28 May 2012, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, are listed below.

Click here for the conference program.

The Twitter hashtag for the conference is #rsa12.

The legal communication / legal rhetoric papers being presented at the conference include the following (if you know of other legal communication papers being presented at the conference, please feel free to list them in the comments):

• Jennifer Andrus, University of Utah, and Nathan Atkinson, Georgia State University: Photographs, Witnesses and Bodies: Toward a Visual Rhetoric of Law
• Joseph Bartolotta, University of Minnesota: Indulging John Marshall’s “Sympathies”: Identification, the Cherokee Nation, and the Supreme Court in Worcester v. Georgia
• Shelby Bell, University of Minnesota: The Presidency as a Tool for Foreign Policy: An Exploration of the Implications of United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp
• Jonathan Benda, Northeastern University: Formosa Betrayed and Its Fate(s): Rhetorical Ecologies and the Reframing of Human Rights Rhetoric
• Frank M. Bryan, University of Vermont: Face-to-face Democratic Deliberation: The Role of Rhetoric in Communal Assemblies
• Peter Odell Campbell, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Queer Phronesis in Constitutional Argument
• Alan Chu, University of Arizona: Legislative New Racism and the Rhetoric of Ethnic Studies in Arizona
• Emily Cooney, Arizona State University: Keeping the Targets Out: Representation and Social Justice in the Arizona SB 1070 Debate
• Mark Davis, Texas Tech University: The U.S. Constitution and Human Rights: A Rhetorical Look at How the Constitution Is Used as a Weapon by Political and Corporate Interests to Deny Human Rights Concerns to Non-citizens Across the Globe
• Matthew deTar, Northwestern University: The Limits of Religious Rights Discourse: The EU in Domestic Turkish Politics
• Rasha Diab, University of Texas: Revisiting the Constitution of Medina: A Medieval, Arab-Islamic Articulation of Conciliation and Human Rights
• Adam Ellwanger, University of Houston-Downtown: Our “Big, Messy Tough Democracy”: Healthcare Reform and the Failure of Rhetoric
• Megan Foley, Mississippi State University: Logos and Aristotelian Justice: Dikē from Aporia to Analogy
• Michaela Frischherz, The University of Iowa: Not Gay Enough: Performing Identifications in U.S. Asylum Law
• John Gastil, Penn State University; Katherine Knobloch, University of Washington; Robert Richards, Penn State University: Vicarious Deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review Influences Deliberation in Mass Elections
• Mary Glavin, Carnegie Mellon University: Free Appropriate Public Education: Anxiety of Agency in Special Education Law
• Jeremiah Hickey, St. John’s University: In Defense of “Breathing Space:” The Structure of Political Debate in Snyder v. Phelps
• Van Hillard, Davidson College: Definitional Anxieties over Protecting Marriage: Kategoria as Civic Violence
• Karen S. Hoffman, Marquette University: Listening to the People: the Contribution of Online Comment Forums
• Jaclyn Howell, University of Kansas: When Communism and Jim Crow Collide: Harry Raymond and the Case of Willie McGee
• Kristen Hungerford, University of Memphis: Obama Doesn’t Like To ‘Tell’: A Rhetoric of Ambiguity in President Obama’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Signing Address
• James Jasinski, University of Puget Sound: Reconstituting a Prudential Middle Ground Regarding Racial Classifications: From Bakke to Parents United
• Helen Lee, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Rhetorical Construction of Gender in Marriage Cases
• Emiliano Marello, Universidad de Buenos Aires: The Rhetoric of the Possibility of Lesbian Love: Argumentative Aspects of the Legal Struggle of Lesbian Mothers in Argentina
• Jonathan Maricle, University of South Carolina: Accountable Deliberation: The Public’s Role in Healthcare Reform
• Sara McKinnon, University of Wisconsin, Madison: Dividing Definitions of Gender/Sexuality and the Implications for Lesbian Asylum Seekers in the United States
• Paul Minifee, San Diego State University : Rhetoric of Agitation: Rev. Jermain W. Loguen’s Speech in Defiance of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850
• William Morgan, New York University: Commodiousness, Concern, and the Uses of Repetitive Questioning in Human Rights Rhetoric
• Christa B. Teston, University of Idaho: Defining “clinical meaningfulness” in FDA cancer-care hearings
• Belinda Walzer, University of North Carolina-Greensboro: What Are The Alternatives? Human Rights, Subjectivity and the Potential of Narrative
• Maggie Werner, Hobart & William: Heroes v. Haters: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Masquerade of Justice
• Karen Wink, U.S. Coast Guard Academy: Deliberative Discourse Surrounding the Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

For abstracts or full text of papers, please contact the authors.

Legal Informatics / Legal Communication Papers @ ICA 2012

The following legal informatics or legal communication papers are being presented at ICA 2012: The Conference of the International Communication Association, being held 24-28 May 2012, in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. (Click here for the full conference program. The Twitter hashtag for the conference is #ica12. If you know of other legal communication or legal informatics papers presented at the conference, please feel free to mention them in the comments):

• Sanna Ala-Kortesmaa, U of Tampere: The Effects of Relational Tensions on Optimal Listening in Legal Communication Relationships
• Cheryl Ann Bishop, Quinnipiac U: Access to Information in the European Court of Human Rights
• Laura W. Black and Anna Marie Wiederhold, Ohio U: “I Agree With All of That, But…” Examining Expressions of Difference in Citizen Discussion Groups
• Emily A. Dolan, Syracuse U: Exploring Privacy on Online Social Networks in Civil Cases
• Dmitry Epstein, Cornell U; Rebecca B. Vernon, Cornell eRulemaking Initiative: Not by Technology Alone: The “Analog” Aspects of Online Public Engagement in Rulemaking
• Jessica Fridy and Karen Tracy, U of Colorado: Majority Rule or a Minority Right? Discursive Orientations Toward Democratic Ideals in a U.S. Public Hearing
• Howard Giles, Douglas Bonilla, Daniel Linz, and Michelle L. Gomez,U of California, Santa Barbara: Police Stops of and Interactions With Latino and White (Non-Latino) Drivers: Extensive Policing and Communication Accommodation
• Jeffrey A. Gottfried, U of Pennsylvania, Eran N. Ben-Porath, Social Science Research Solutions, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, U of Pennsylvania: Do Judges Perceive Value in Voter Guides for Judicial Elections?
• Karina Horsti, New York U; Saara Pellander, U of Helsinki: Family in Migration Debates: Polarised Discourses in Finnish Media and Parliament
• Robert Huesca, Trinity U; Roopali Mukherjee, CUNY – Queens College; Eren McGinnis, Dos Vatos Productions: Precious Knowledge: A Film and Discussion
• Shazia Iftkhar, U of Michigan: “The Republic is Lived With the Face Uncovered”: Framing the Legal Ban on the ‘Burqa’ in France
• Oyvind Ihlen and Kjersti Thorbjornsrud, U of Oslo: Tears vs. Rules and Regulations: Media Strategies and Framing of Immigration Issues
• Melissa A. Johnson, North Carolina State U: Battleground Arizona: Visual Fidelity in Network News Coverage of Arizona’s Immigration Law
• Michael K Park, U of Southern California: Juror Misconduct 2.0: The Right to an Impartial Jury in the Age of Social Networking
• Jennifer M. Proffitt and Margot A. Susca, Florida State U: Follow the Money: The Entertainment Software Association Attack on Video Game Regulation
• Ryan Rogers, U of North Carolina: The Violence of a Generation: Supreme Court Ruling on Regulating Violent Video Games for Minors
• Leah Sprain, Colorado State U: Speaking as “Experts” and “Citizens” in Public Meetings
• T.T. Sreekumar and Shobha Vadrevu, National U of Singapore: “If I Can, I Legislate. If I Can’t, I Gazette”: Political Twitterati and Democracy in Singapore
• Inger Lisbeth Stole, U of Illinois: The 1930s: Consumers Reactions to Advertising and Demands for Federal Regulation
• Chad Tew and Amy Jorgensen, U of Southern Indiana: Accused and Confused: An Analysis of YouTube Reaction Videos to Copyright Violations
• Mercedes Vigon, Florida International U: Not Business as Usual: Spanish–Language TV Coverage of Arizona’s Immigration Law, April-May 2010

For full text of papers, please contact the authors.

Felicetti, Gastil, et al. on Collective Identity and Voice at the Australian Citizens’ Parliament

Andrea Felicetti of Australian National University, Professor Dr. John Gastil of the Penn State University Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, and colleagues, have published Collective Identity and Voice at the Australian Citizens’ Parliament, Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(1), article 5 (2012). Here is the abstract:

This paper examines the role of collective identity and collective voice in political life. We argue that persons have an underlying predisposition to use collective dimensions, such as common identities and a public voice, in thinking and expressing themselves politically. This collective orientation, however, can be either fostered or weakened by citizens’ political experiences. Although the collective level is an important dimension in contemporary politics, conventional democratic practices do not foster it. Deliberative democracy is suggested as an environment that might allow more ground for citizens to express themselves not only in individual but also in collective terms. We examine this theoretical perspective through a case study of the Australian Citizens’ Parliament [ACP], in which transcripts are analyzed to determine the extent to which collective identities and common voice surfaced in actual discourse. We analyze the dynamics involved in the advent of collective dimensions in the deliberative process and highlight the factors—deliberation, nature of the discussion, and exceptional opportunity—that potentially facilitated the rise of group identities and common voice. In spite of the strong individualistic character of the Australian cultural identity, we nonetheless found evidence of both collective identity and voice at the Citizens’ Parliament, expressed in terms of national, state, and community levels. In the conclusion, we discuss the implications of those findings for future research and practice of public deliberation.

The paper also discusses these issues in the context of ACP participants’ deliberation about a number of Australian laws.

Gastil on Voir Dire Discrimination

Professor Dr. John Gastil of the Penn State University Department of Communication Arts and Sciences has posted New York Times Weighs in On Voir Dire Discrimination, at Jury and Democracy.

In this post, Professor Gastil comments on State v. Robinson, in which a death sentence was vacated on the ground that the prosecution’s peremptory challenges were racially motivated, in violation of North Carolina’s Racial Justice Act [N.C. Gen. Stat. sections 15A-2010, 15A-2011, and 15A-2012].

Professor Gastil notes that discriminatory jury selection practices harm, not only defendants,but also “prospective jurors themselves, who are denied the civic educational opportunity that the jury provides.”

For more information, please see the complete post.